...and despite my preferences for tactical and strategic elements in rp which tend towards a rules heavy environment, I have somehow invented a rules-lite system of role playing.

*A few moments of silence while I overcome my embarrassment, please*

So I thought I would ask here, as quite a few here prefer lightweight systems, what do you want to see (and definitely don't want to see) in a lightweight rule system?

Also, please consider how it might be possible to pull off the feat of applying tactical and strategic elements in all three dimensions (and assuming that all participants/characters will be represented with a 2d framework) to a rules-lite system?

Thank you in advance for your comments.

jpatterson

09-25-2014, 12:59 AM

I wish I had that problem, where I accidentally made rules lite games. All my stuff keeps getting away from me with scope-creep and self-bloating.

What I want to see or not see if a bit vague. That's like asking "What is your favorite solid object?" with no other criteria. In context of what? Chargen? Combat? Stats? Skills? Movement? Magic? Dice rolls? System mechanics and task resolution? Races? Professions? Equipment?

(oh, and in response to your favorite solid object question, the first thing that came to mind was my wife'n'kids... oh, and i'm kinda fond of the planet and associated environs too. )

the current iteration of the system is so rules-lite, it is actually diceless.

DMMike

09-26-2014, 12:38 PM

Character A is in location xyz∆, character B is in a different location xyz∆, can they affect each other and to with what degree of likelihood / success?

If you're using grid coordinates, you're wandering out of the realm of rules-light. I guess you could probably keep it fairly simple, though:
- pieces move up/down, left/right, in a number of spaces equal to their Speed.
- movement through walls or other pieces are not allowed. (Unless you're a Knight.)
- close range attacks occur only with other adjacent, non-diagonal pieces.
- extended range attacks may occur with any square not partially or fully obstructed by another piece or wall.

Plenty of tactical questions available here:
- when do I move?
- which piece do I move?
- does my Speed allow me (or my opponent) to attack this round, given the obstacles?
- can I threaten two pieces at the same time?
- should I block access to one of my pieces with my other pieces?

and so on.

PS - Wow. Now I REALLY want to create a combat system designed for a chess board and chess pieces.

nijineko

09-26-2014, 10:44 PM

I have not decided whether or not to use grid coordinates. What other systems or mechanics might be possible to accomplish this?

DMMike

09-29-2014, 08:00 PM

Anything you want. However, the more rules you write is the more tactical you can get. The fewer rules you write is the more you depend on rule zero.

I was aiming for simplicity with my system (https://modos-rpg.obsidianportal.com/), and drew a lot from Skyrim and Final Fantasy to do it. Let's see how many rules it took:

- Conflict occurs in rounds.
- Characters roll d20, and turns during the round progress highest to lowest.
- The character taking his turn announces his action, to which all other combatants can respond with an action.
- All actions then occur with the acting character first, then are resolved in initiative order.
- Using consecutive, similar actions during your turn allows you to use the higher of the rolls as your die result.
- Each character gets three actions, and the round ends when the character with the lowest initiative ends his turn.
- There are two postures (positions) in combat: offensive and defensive. Offensive is toe-to-toe combat, and defensive is everything else.
- Melee weapons deal half damage to opponents in a different posture than yours, and no damage to defensive enemies if you are also defensive.
- Ranged weapons and short range spells deal 50% damage if you and your opponent are defensive.
- One (movement) action is required to change postures.
- A successful movement action from defensive posture allows a character to flee combat.
- A character may enter combat in "flanking" posture, which acts as an offensive posture that prevents enemies from fleeing.

So, the bulk of it falls into 12 rules. You might see the Final Fantasy in there (rows). The Skyrim isn't as explicitly combat-related. But hit up the link and use whatever you like.

nijineko

10-05-2014, 02:14 PM

anything i want is terribly unspecific. and while it is quite true that it will end up whatever i decide it to be, i am looking for some useful suggestions to hone my particular block of marble down to something a bit more fashioned.

and re-reading your post for the fourth time over several different days seems to yield that you didn't actually answer my last question. while i DO appreciate your sharing of combat rules, and quite useful they are, i'm still asking for spatial positioning and ranging mechanics other than a grid and coord system.

nijineko

10-17-2014, 11:16 PM

hmmm, i had rather thought there would be more feedback on this. oh well.

tesral

10-18-2014, 01:23 AM

Lightweight? I like medium weight myself. I'm enough of a war gamer to like a bit of crunch in my game. True 20 is way to light for my taste. On the other hand a simulationist combat system takes way too muich time and effort.

What do I like? Yes systems. A system that doen't default to "That which is not premittied is forbidden", like AD&D or 3x D&D. A good system tells you how to say yes to your players.

DMMike

10-18-2014, 11:14 AM

hmmm, i had rather thought there would be more feedback on this. oh well.
Well, I'm slightly confused about your question, since I thought I had answered it. Perhaps my confusion is shared by others, and this is preventing them from responding?

What do I like? Yes systems. A system that doen't default to "That which is not premittied is forbidden", like AD&D or 3x D&D. A good system tells you how to say yes to your players.
Here, here. RPGs shouldn't be limiting; they should be enabling. To be fair to my former favorite system, 3e D&D had rules for permissiveness, but they were mentioned in passing instead of emphasized.

tesral

10-18-2014, 12:15 PM

Well
Here, here. RPGs shouldn't be limiting; they should be enabling. To be fair to my former favorite system, 3e D&D had rules for permissiveness, but they were mentioned in passing instead of emphasized.

Not to hijack the thread by my experience with 3e was that things like the skills system crippled certain classes as to being a yes game. Likewise feats hobbled anyone bet a fighters as the feat trees required lots of feats as only fighters had.

I tried to build a broadly knowledgeable fighter. A sort of sage/detective in armor. The 'class skills' system that penalized anything but class shills made that impossible. The lesson was plain, "Thou must not build anything but a sword jock,"

The take away for nijineko (http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/member.php/1336-nijineko) is to watch out for seemingly innocuous systems in your game that restrict rather than enable.No character concept should require bending the rules if the rules truly say yes.

Malruhn

10-22-2014, 05:18 PM

I always twisted the D&D rule about, "That which is not permitted is forbidden," into, "That which is not permitted is allowed and we'll crunch it out when it occurs."

tesral

10-23-2014, 01:49 AM

Exactly. My preference for Pathfinder over D&D 3.5 comes from their efforts to eradicate the No monster. The Old School approach, anything not forbidden is permitted. Followed by forbid very little.

You Malruhn are Old School. So sayth the Dean.

falinxelote

10-23-2014, 06:48 AM

I tend to prefer to lend an ear to roll play and allow players to try things even if they haven't got the abilities to justify doing so. Like a whirlwind attack attempt at level 2. I give penalties to it of course. But they are situation based and lack of experience based in the above example you are a few levels off from when you could gain the feat so you take an experience based pen of 1 per level difference and with other situation benefits or penalties you still might pull it off. It also winds you when you are finished. But keep heart Fatigue potions are common.

nijineko

10-28-2014, 10:03 AM

What do I like? Yes systems. A system that doen't default to "That which is not premittied is forbidden", like AD&D or 3x D&D. A good system tells you how to say yes to your players.

ummm, i think that is a dm fault, not a system fault. my 3.x games have always defaulted to the rule of yes. and whenever they haven't, it was because of the DM. now, is 3.x a "good" system by your last bit of criteria there? 3.x does make mention of using the rules to enable the players, but the rules presentation, RAW, and RAI wind up in such contrempts that the end effect is a tendency to forbid this, that and the other; so we are in agreement at least that far.

...aaaaand reading down the thread first might be a good idea too. ^^

so I've been having this discussion recently with a long term DM of mine, I am firmly in the rule of yes camp, while he seems to be feeling his way towards a forbid-everything-until-the-game-is-simple-enough-to-be-manageable stance. the odd thing is that it seems that he still feels that he is trying to be in the rule of yes camp by removing unnecessary complexity and ambiguity. which is a theoretically tenable stance I suppose, but it seems to me that he is going about it by forbidding and restricting various things to see how it affects gameplay.

one example: he was commenting the other day that he had designed an encounter which he expected to be seriously tough - two roughly parallel sets of caves joined only by small holes drilled through 5' of rock where ogre mages in gaseous form could ambush the players, attacking and retreating as necessary. however, it seems that the players calculated that they could deal enough damage to break through a 5' section of rock in a few rounds, and proceeded to do so after having figured out the significance of the holes, and got the drop on the ogre magi ending it rather quickly. one of his comments was that the players could simply deal out too much damage to challenge with encounters.

now we didn't have time to hash it out entirely, so there are probably more factors involved than my simplistic recollection is providing - but I spotted a number of potential flubs with how this whole encounter went down. even setting aside the potential for damage to weapons while breaking through rock, this is a noisy operation. assuming that the caverns aren't completely covered by hangings and draperies, then the sound of this operation would have reverberated and echoed throughout the entire cavern complex. suddenly and unexpectedly being jumped by dungeon delvers would probably result in an instant retreat / invisibility / gaseous form / regroup on the part of said ogre magi rather than fighting it out.

but his point seemed to be that since the players had too much yes, it was hard on him to design meaningful and challenging encounters, and they needed to be restricted in some way. whereas I was trying to point out that if they enjoyed figuring out the trick of the trap, getting the jump on the ambushers and feeling great that they "beat the trap" then in fact, he succeeded in providing a great encounter. and as I mentioned above, the reactions to the players choices could have been handled differently if he wanted to prolong the challenge out a bit longer.

and I have just gone over and added to my campaign rules blog my "rule of yes" to make it explicitly clear.

also, if I am being confusing, please point it out to me - I don't always spot those things in my own posts. I prefer you to be blunt (in a kind way, if possible) and I'll endeavor to clarify. =D

tesral

10-28-2014, 04:27 PM

You can lead a horse to water as the saying goes.

I have one friend that had a bunch of passive aggressive players with a tendency to derail her game. She tried to make a system that was "player proof" Much like your friend.

It is called a novel. If you have a way that an encounter must proceed and must end, gaming is not your deal, write novels.

Something else to put in your blog. I need to add this to my GMing rules. Let go. You are not in control, you were never in control and you will never be in control. The game is not about you the GM or your NPCs. The Player Characters are the Stars. Anything you do to derail that is bad, and anything you do to enhance it is good.

Skunkape

10-29-2014, 12:54 PM

I need to add this to my GMing rules. Let go. You are not in control, you were never in control and you will never be in control. The game is not about you the GM or your NPCs. The Player Characters are the Stars. Anything you do to derail that is bad, and anything you do to enhance it is good.

That's a very good quote!

DMMike

10-29-2014, 08:22 PM

I need to add this to my GMing rules. Let go. You are not in control, you were never in control and you will never be in control. The game is not about you the GM or your NPCs. The Player Characters are the Stars. Anything you do to derail that is bad, and anything you do to enhance it is good.

Good idea, but it has its limits. You still need to protect the PCs from each other, and themselves. And since not all players are the best story-writers, the GM needs to maintain enough control to keep a decent story going.

For example, a PC with too much agency might build himself a castle and proceed to only undertake quests that benefit him. So he sits out the other "menial" tasks that the other PCs pursue, and proceeds to demand his own GM time when he feels that he's being ignored...

The Rule of Yes goes great with the companion rule: You Have the Right to Fail.

nijineko

10-29-2014, 11:00 PM

so has anyone ever ran across a simplistic or simplify-able tactical system they would like to share or invent on the spot?

tesral

10-30-2014, 12:50 AM

Good idea, but it has its limits. You still need to protect the PCs from each other, and themselves. And since not all players are the best story-writers, the GM needs to maintain enough control to keep a decent story going.

For example, a PC with too much agency might build himself a castle and proceed to only undertake quests that benefit him. So he sits out the other "menial" tasks that the other PCs pursue, and proceeds to demand his own GM time when he feels that he's being ignored...

The Rule of Yes goes great with the companion rule: You Have the Right to Fail.

Never do, protect the PCs from themsevles of each other that is. The right to fail is inherent in the game. Players that put their character on the sideline will find that character sidelined. The game is about going and doing, not sitting in the counting house.

tesral

10-30-2014, 12:54 AM

The simplest method I have found is to mirror the PCs in the army they fight with. The better they win the better the margin of victory. They worse they lose likewise. For any battle I give each PC two or three hero fights. There section of the army fairs exactly as they do.

Oh and the winner in any battle gets one third of the casualties back. Represents wounded recovering.

falinxelote

10-30-2014, 07:09 AM

Basics
I basically boil the fight down. Each "Unit", be it legion or group of 10 town guards, gets stats and combat values as if they were an individual. HP is the total number of Hit Dice among the unit. When a unit reaches 10% of its max HP it is defeated if it reaches 0 then it is destroyed. I build the rest of their combat values by average. A group of 10 town guards might average to 12 strength, 13 dex etc... Then also average the level and basically just build a single character that way. I might give a group of trained soldiers a bit of a bonus over a group of poorly trained town guards. I then establish a moral for the group which is a score from 1-20 which notes how resolute they are in the fight.

From there itís easy, just run a fight and roll moral every 3 round and when their HP drops by 10% or more in one round. Keep good notes, because death and injury will largely be based on how much damage was dealt when. If town guard unit 1 took 50% of its HP in round 2 then they lost at least 1/4 of their unit then. My rule is a death occurs when HP damage >= 2 * average number of HD among the unit. but this is mitigated by how much damage the unit took in the long run. Assume an individual can take 1 HD over its max HD before dead unless they are barbarians or above level 10. Calculate XP based on what each unit took out.

Moral stuff
Unit is untrained like a goblin hoard -1 to -5 based on how untrained
Unit is shaken a roll on a D20 within 3 points of their moral so a moral of 15 shaken is 12-18 a roll of 19-20 is fleeing.
20 is always fleeing even with the best moral.
Unit has firm moral roll of 1 on moral check or beat score by 10 or more, moral 15 has a firm of 1-5.
When shaken a unit has a -2 all actions, most saves, attacks, and damages and a -5 will save or similar.
When fleeing a unit has -4 all actions, most saves, attacks, and damages and fails most will saves on all but a critical success else -10.
When firm a unit has a +2 all actions, most saves, attacks, and damages and a +5 will save or similar.

Other possible bonuses or penalties
HP 2x your opponents or better (Overwhelming odds) +3 all AC, saves, attacks, skill rolls, and damages
Terrain -5 to +5 based on circumstance applies to accuracy, AC, and damage only
Rally when a unit is shaken or fleeing a commander (at least 2 levels over the level of the unit) can attempt a Rally. Opposed will saves except the "-" to will applies as a bonus to the roll for the unit.
Commanders grant a unit a moral bonus of +2 to all actions and saves also they count as a unit by themselves though they use full HP not their HD

This was created for D20 however it ports to other systems fairly easily. Iíve used it once for savage worlds and several times in AD&D, also twice in Alternaty. SW had the most changes but it always seems to work. Just calculate your unit by average and give it HP equal to its member number or average HP or total HD. Then grant a bonus for commanders.

falinxelote

10-30-2014, 07:18 AM

Of course I also wrote a program at one point that actually ran the whole combat and stopped on the players inits showing me the enemies stats at the time and locations were by grid you could attack anyone in your grid. But that one was clunky and required a lot of tweeking for a new type of battle also didnt really factor in units of spell casters. I can in my system do a unit of 10 sorcerers and I'm just fine. Although spell damage has to be calculated based on number of casters vs number of opponents in some cases.

nijineko

11-03-2014, 11:33 PM

it certainly seems that one vs one, small group versus others, and mass combat all lean towards different rules for the situations. most games present the same rules for the first and second - which rule sets usually break down into unmanageable or untimely results when applied to mass combat.

i think part of the problem is the particular conceptual oversimplification of hit points. i understand that most people drop from a single successful sword blow, regardless of where it actually strikes, simply due to pain and shock; let alone if something is additionally broken, punctured, severed, or otherwise impaired. (successful as in it actually damages the body by breaking or cutting.) most hit point based systems do not also have wounding rules or gradated combat ability what with the ideal of simple and easy to play rules. such simplification (while usually mostly effective for small scale combats) actually complicates mass combat in the end. not that the ideal of simple and easy to play rules is a bad idea in any way - just complicative. ^^

falinxelote

11-04-2014, 07:18 AM

Well, I agree with you, sort of. It is just to much to ask to have one system of combat work and be interesting for 2 combatants or 2000. I mean you are going to have to give up some realism in order to save some time and make it enjoyable. I'm not trying to start an argument but I think the best you can hope for is a helpful tool. One that might make it easier to figure out what happened. That is why I use the system I listed above. It's D20 you boil the combat down into a battle between just a few people and in the end you can figure out what happened and give a good description later. I try to make the rolled out section as short and to the point as possible.

I used to create a generalized Unit Power% that was a measure of how effective the unit was compared to the overall combat. I decided it was too simplistic and didn't give enough diversity to what you can do. In the end I have come to the conclusion that rolling out large scale battles is going to be tough. The trick is just find what works for your style of game and run with it. Do you want an army of swashbuckling pirates swinging from the rafters of an inn dualing the city guard with candlesticks and attempting to trip them with ropes or can you explain that is what they are doing while just giving them a numerical value of effectiveness and roll to see what happened. I mean isn't that what the table top is all about the dice are just there to answer the question of what the outcome is and the DM/GM is there to give the hows and whys.

tesral

11-04-2014, 02:13 PM

Another possibility is pure average. When this 1000 fights that 1000 what is the average damage done by each side?

This does tend to devolve into a bloody fight of attrition. One can modify it with morale the side with better morale gets an advantage. Be that fighting on home turf, a charismatic commander, religious zeal, or that PC hero kicking ass and taking names.

Induvdual systems break down at mass combat not becasue they don't work, but it takes you 40 minutes to resolve all the melee rolls for one side for one round.

Skunkape

11-05-2014, 09:19 AM

I purchased a book recently that adds rules for ships and mass combat to RuneQuest. I have read through it once and it looks to make mass combat somewhat easier to run. I'm going to have to read through it again and play through a couple of test mass combats before I actually use it in my Magic World campaign. Ships and Shield Walls (http://www.thedesignmechanism.com/products.php#!/~/product/category=5186110&id=36842448)

Not saying it's for everyone, but it allows GMs to consider various unit formation techniques as far as how they effect combat. Not being a overly experienced in ancient style fighting, it looks good to me.

nijineko

11-09-2014, 12:56 PM

I am thinking of a tentative ranged system with the ranges being touch, short range, long range, extreme range, out of range; A task type of simple, intermediate, and complex; and some suggested circumstance modifiers for tactical, strategic, moral, environmental, and other conditions. I have also considered reducing the math by making advantages and disadvantages a binary affair with the total of plus and minuses summed, rolling the equivalent number of dice and taking the single best result of the various rolls. Taking into account the advice given this far and my desire for at least some semblance of realism and the goal of simplicity.

tesral

11-10-2014, 06:22 AM

So something like the Iron Claw system?

DMMike

11-10-2014, 12:08 PM

Roll X choose 1 sounds like a very nice simplifying step.

You could simplify those task types further by making one standard action, and anything more complicated is just a combination of multiple actions.

The roll many pick one is an Iron Claw mechanic. You skill/ability is based on the dice and type you get to roll from d4 to d12 and the number of dices, some times of mixed types.

nijineko

11-13-2014, 02:20 PM

I think I've seen it else where too. Thanks for the info.

nijineko

12-10-2014, 11:29 PM

any feedback on my ranged ideas? improvements?

falinxelote

12-12-2014, 06:00 AM

I am thinking of a tentative ranged system with the ranges being touch, short range, long range, extreme range, out of range; A task type of simple, intermediate, and complex; and some suggested circumstance modifiers for tactical, strategic, moral, environmental, and other conditions. I have also considered reducing the math by making advantages and disadvantages a binary affair with the total of plus and minuses summed, rolling the equivalent number of dice and taking the single best result of the various rolls. Taking into account the advice given this far and my desire for at least some semblance of realism and the goal of simplicity.

That is the ranged system I usually use. It's just easy and effective with penalties assigned for each and max range notation on any ranged attacks. I like the summed advantage and disadvantage system the only trouble I find in such systems is they are rarely balanced. The advantages are weak and the Disadvantages are constant, for example the advantage might be when hiding from a larger opponent, in conditions of low lighting, in wilderness environments and the same or even less points valued disadvantage would be a constant whenever you roll stealth take this pen, totally unbalanced. To balance it out the two have to be game play balanced where 3 points of disadvantage is worth doing to gain the 3 points of advantage.

Also I know some people dislike systems with measurable disadvantages. But I tend to prefer disadvantages that require players to roll play them. That way I cut the crap out of your exp if you don't play them like half or less, depending upon how far outside you went. For example, Character A has an "Ism" of Racist against elves. Character B has the same "Ism". So they encounter a group of raider elves on a mission. Noticing that these elves are armed for war and headed toward their kingdom... Character A automatically assumes they are attacking because elves are a treacherous lot, A very racist assumption. Character B argues that they might be doing something else and yadda yadda yadda. After a long discussion, Character A attacks, Character B just joins the fight out of loyalty to his comrade. Character A gets most of the EXP.

nijineko

12-20-2014, 01:58 PM

how would one codify this ranged system into a few simple sentences?

Malruhn

12-20-2014, 02:55 PM

To make things simpler, I would use the same yard-stick for all actions. The way you have your ranged attacks and tasks right now are two systems - just stick to one:
touch = simple
short range = moderate
medium range = moderate
long range = complex
Out of range = ridiculous (why have this if it's "out of range"??)

The same number of levels for all activities. Then, when rolling for success, simple = full roll and mods, and then add the penalties as you go up in complexity.

DMMike

12-22-2014, 10:34 AM

Here's my old version of ranges: https://modos-rpg.obsidianportal.com/wikis/r403

And the new version. There are four ranges, all somewhat abstract so rulers aren't necessary:

Close. This is the front line of battle. Close range is where melee takes place, where someone could hit you with a weapon at any time. Close range represents the distance between two adjacent rows in combat: defensive to offensive allies, or offensive allies to offensive enemies.
Short. This is the boundary of most conflict. It's a good distance for using thrown weapons, bows, and pistols. Voices can be heard clearly at short range, and spells with a range of "short" can target anyone in combat.
Medium. Opponents are just outside combat at this range. This is a good range for some spells and rifles, but held (melee) weapons and thrown weapons are useless. Voices can still be heard at medium range, and this is where characters go when fleeing and flanking.
Long. Only the most powerful weapons and spells can cause damage at long range. Distance and obstacles make it easy to disappear when at long range. Bows cannot fire past this range, and magic spells effectively become simple light shows. Voices cannot be heard at long range, but high-powered rifles can!

Which is to say, you can get by without touch range and out-of-range if you want.

nijineko

12-30-2014, 02:00 PM

those are some excellent thoughts.

my original line of thinking on the out-of-range is that since it is different for different things, it is the point of unity where one simply will not and can not hit with a given attempt. the point of no return if you will. some games fail to define when something is simply not going to happen, leading to some unusual results. however, some of the most amusing stories spring from just such a lack.

I think I may have hit upon a method for defining positional relations between any given two points, by coining words to define said directions.

falinxelote

01-23-2015, 07:29 PM

So I have a confession to make. I've played iron claw but its not my favorite system. I'm not a big fan of heavy reliance on just dice. I prefer a system with lots of progression room. And a balance between randomness and set values.

nijineko

01-24-2015, 05:17 PM

as to what i have so far, i now have exactly three rules, which rules even combined are so simple it is actually a diceless system.

the first rule describes how to build a character. the second rule describes how traits work. the third rule describes how to resolve conflicts.

without going into too much detail, characters are comprised of traits, the number of which and value range thereof can be limited in of several different fashions (if desired) to cap the overall power level of the game. traits consist of a value which determines how powerful it is and how many times it can be used in a given encounter. traits may synergize and possibly have limitations. conflict resolution is handled by a primary, secondary, tertiary resolution mechanic, where primary is a noetic challenge between the conflicting players, secondary is trait showdown, and tertiary is a tie-breaker mechanic.

falinxelote

01-24-2015, 08:54 PM

I would be interested in seeing that mechanic that sounds fairly cool.

DMMike

01-26-2015, 12:42 PM

Yeah. We want details!

I shiver to think of diceless games though. The dice are magical little gems that hold the answers to everything within them. Why pass up such cool, little baubles?

One reason to skip them is that most dice rely on numbers, which require mathematical thinking instead of roleplaying. But that hasn't bothered me much in the past.

tesral

01-28-2015, 02:10 PM

conflict resolution is handled by a primary, secondary, tertiary resolution mechanic, where primary is a noetic challenge between the conflicting players, secondary is trait showdown, and tertiary is a tie-breaker mechanic.

I would be concerned if it was best always wins circumstance. While yes it might for the way to bet the race is not always to the swift. If it is then why have a contest?

nijineko

01-29-2015, 04:37 PM

the conflict resolution mechanic?

well, it is a tertiary mechanic in order to provide a method of resolving deadlocks and ties to the primary method, noetic combat. i have been recently contemplating making it a quaternary mechanic so as to provide a greater focus on the purposed intent of the game - supporting storytelling.

noetic means "of the mind or intellect", it also has a connotation of exploring the mind or how the mind affects one's surroundings via non-traditional methods, which ties into the alpha version of the proposed campaign world/setting.

in any case, noetic combat is conflict resolution by storytelling. as previously mentioned, characters consist of traits. traits are one-word descriptions of what a character is. the definition of a given trait provides the guidance for how a trait may be used. in a conflict each participant picks a trait they will use to resolve it with. the player then describes the thoughts and intended actions of the character referencing the trait as often as possible without duplication of words or repetitious description. working in one or more references to other traits the character possesses is also acceptable. working in references to other stories (previous events in the game, movies, literature, real life, etc.,) or using said references to obliquely reference the trait is encouraged. each instance of a reference is worth a 'weight'. some references might be well layered, and be worth multiple weights. whomever's story has the most weight, "wins".

the secondary mechanic, trait showdown, only occurs if noetic combat ties or is unresolved. the tertiary tiebreaker only occurs if the previous two fail to resolve.

my hinted at forth mechanic would occur between the noetic combat and trait showdown, and would be a sub-set of noetic combat where the other characters in the game can add noetic weight to the side of their choice to tip the balance... and possibly gain some of the win benefit.

Tesral's concern, the 'best always wins' (assuming a numerical superiority idea) would not happen unless trait showdown occurred, where one chooses at what value the trait will be applied. (though, if you had some that were better at stringing words together than others, that could potentially cause imbalance in the game...)

nijineko

02-12-2015, 11:40 AM

Any other thoughts or feedback?

DMMike

02-13-2015, 09:09 AM

Yes. Give us an example of the rules in use.

Situation 1: Jpat sits in front of the World's Hardest Crossword Puzzle. How do you know if he completes it?
Situation 2: AK74 and the Moderator are about to go to fisticuffs. What do they (not) roll?
Situation 3: Fmitch crawls up to the emperor, begging forgiveness for walking his regiment into an ambush and losing the whole thing. How does he succeed/fail?

nijineko

02-16-2015, 05:14 PM

Yes. Give us an example of the rules in use.

Situation 1: Jpat sits in front of the World's Hardest Crossword Puzzle. How do you know if he completes it?
Situation 2: AK74 and the Moderator are about to go to fisticuffs. What do they (not) roll?
Situation 3: Fmitch crawls up to the emperor, begging forgiveness for walking his regiment into an ambush and losing the whole thing. How does he succeed/fail?

1) The GM (or player who created said puzzle) will select a trait that embodies the difficulty of the puzzle and layer in references to said trait and supporting references into the puzzle's description for noetic weight. Jpat reviews his character's traits and picks the one he feels will most apply. He then describes how he will use his trait (layering in references to other character traits and references to other game events, popular media, clever puns, and whatever else fits the theme of his attempted action as appropriate for increased noetic weight) to solve the puzzle. Whomever's story carries more noetic weight has triumphed in the conflict.

2) Each individual selects the trait they will use in the first engagement (exchange of stories). They then each describe in turn how they will start off the combat. Whichever description carries more noetic weight determines who goes next in describing how they will press their advantage. For each engagement, the players select which trait they feel is most appropriate. For example, if the Moderator's story during the initial exchange carries more weight, Moderator will likely select a trait suitable for aggressive physical combat, perhaps strength. AK74 may in turn select a trait such as agility for use in a defensive fashion, and maybe work in counter-attacks into the description during AK74's turn. Combat continues until resolution has been accomplished. In the event of the quaternary mechanic I am contemplating, other players would also have a contribution during each exchange to describe their thoughts and reactions to the combat which would have the effect of lending noetic weight to one side or there other, as each player prefers. This would prevent a long series of engagements from isolating other players with nothing to do.

3) (Assuming the GM is playing the part of the Emperor) The GM would describe the thoughts, feelings, and any statements of the Emperor to establish noetic weight. Fmitch selects the most appropriate trait and describes the character's thoughts and actions layering in references for noetic weight. Whomever has the greater noetic weight will swing the story towards their desires (as described in their portion of the exchange). Other players may add in noetic weight to whichever side they choose if the quaternary mechanic is in effect. This includes any NPCs (advisors, councilors, whomever has the ear of the Emperor and may be trying to influence the decision for or against Fmitch).

Generally speaking, the greater the difference in noetic weight, the more impactful the change should be in favor of whichever side weighed in more.

DMMike

02-17-2015, 06:09 PM

Oh. Well, that is really cool! It sounds like a lot of fun, too. My concern is that it sounds highly subjective, so players might find that their efforts don't matter very much since it seems to just boil down to GM opinion. I hope that's not the case.

nijineko

03-14-2015, 12:58 PM

I'm hoping that my proposed rule of allowing other players to 'weigh in' on a given conflict will factor into the GM's decision.

Perhaps such guidance should be made explicit in a rule or rules for GM'ing.

Also, the fact that noetic weight is a numerical value, has in effect the same result as rolling dice. should it be necessary, one can simply compare the noetic weight factors and whichever is higher, 'wins'. the GM is expected to adjudicate circumstantial influences, just as in all games, but it truly does not depend only upon GM opinion.

if someone challenges the weight claimed, one can always go over the references one by one to establish provenance for your noetic values.

DMMike

03-15-2015, 10:33 AM

Yup. Make it explicit. Assume your audience knows basically nothing until you tell it to them.

Weighing in is great for the players. In fact, the players should almost be always doing something more than playing just one character (because the GM plays every other character, AND adjudicates the rules, AND runs the game world, AND guides the plot, AND...)

Since this game looks to be very subjective, you should probably employ all players (including GM) to help judge outcomes. That might make the decision-making process go a little faster, and if it's democratic, you'll hear fewer complaints at the table.

nijineko

03-29-2015, 12:28 AM

really? i had not thought of it as subjective, but i think i see your meaning and point. i had thought that the numeric value of the noetic weight would prevent too much opinion versus concrete conflict resolution, but i suppose the process of validating noetic weight if challenged does effectively rely on group opinion and consensus.